My all-time best list

I have had this idea for quite some time. To tell the truth I have been thinking along this line since World Athletics (they were called IAAF at that time) awarded the athlete of the 20th century title to F. Blankers-Koen 

and C. Lewis. I was beginning to be disappointed by C. Lewis and his attitude (at that time, and the feeling grew over the years). To tell the truth I could not understand why Lewis was selected rather than, say Owens or Zatopek. So I decided to establish my own list of top athletes. It is definitely a subjective one. For instance you will not find King Carl in my top list. He should have figured there on pure technical arguments, but knowing perfectly that I am unfair I preferred to give his place to some other athlete (in this case to none other than the great Tommie Smith).

It is customary to have a top-ten list but in my case I found this too restrictive. So, I opted for a top-twelve. Moreover I decided that I would not include athletes who are still in their prime. So athletes like A. Duplantis, A. Felix, E. Thompson-Herah, S. McLaughlin or A. Wlodarczyk do not figure in the list. I made an exception for E. Kipchoge in the men's list since he is, to my eyes, the greatest Marathon runner ever. He can very well win a few more Marathons but given what he has already done he has won his place among the all-time best.

So without further ado, here is my top-12 list for men

James Thorpe
Jesse Owens
Emil Zatopek 
Parry O’Brien
Al Oerter
Bikila Abebe
Tommie Smith
Edwin Moses
Hicham ElGuerouj
Sergey Bubka
Usain Bolt
Eliud Kipchoge

and for women

Kinue Hitomi
Fanny Blankers-Koen
Iolanda Balas
Wilma Rudolph
Irina Szewinska
Marita Koch
Merlene Ottey
Heike Drechsler
Jackie Joyner-Kersee
Yelena Isinbaeva
Tirunesh Dibaba
Valerie Adams

And since I talked about the athlete of the 20th century and made clear that I did not approve the choice of C. Lewis (while I found the choice of F. Blankers-Koen quite justified) I should present my own choice for the athlete of the century: E. Zatopek.

His feat is unique: in the 1952 Olympics he won the 5000 m, 10000 m and the Marathon, despite the fact that it was his first participation in the latter event. (L. Viren tried to match Zatopek's feat in 1976 but could only finish 5th in the Marathon).

Should I laugh or should I cry? The modern pentathlon slapstick

Modern pentathlon is a superannuated discipline that would have disappeared were it not a deCoubertenian heirloom (and the fact that its current promoter is none other than Juan Antonio Samaranch junior).

Why should I laugh? In a recent article of mine on modern pentathlon I wrote 

"Well, if they asked my opinion I would say that the best choice is an obstacle course, but that would necessitate quite some original thinking on behalf of the Union Internationale du Pentathlon Moderne (UIPM) mandarins".

And, lo and behold, it was the obstacle course that was chosen as the discipline that will replace the equestrian event.

Why should I cry? I am afraid that with this program change the modern pentathlon may well survive the 2028 purge and keep its place in the olympic program. So my "good riddance" article was perhaps a bit premature.

But let us give a succinct background. Modern pentathlon has always been a niche discipline. Were it not for the protection it was receiving by generations of IOC VIPs it would have crept into oblivion a long time ago. But even so, the Tokyo equestrian scandal put the discipline back on the head-chopping block. For those who did not follow: a german coach hit a recalcitrant horse and in the general outcry that ensued the UIPM decided to remove the equestrian event from the pentathlon program. 

A first remark concerns the slowness (or is it hesitancy?) of decision taking of the IOC. Despite the Tokyo debacle, the equestrian event will be present in Paris in 2024. And if some pentathletes are assigned difficult horses, like the one who created the problem in Tokyo, well, tough luck: a multi-year preparation going down the drain because of the absence of a courageous decision.

The IOC decided that they would re-consider the possibility of inclusion of the modern pentathlon in the Los Angeles program, once a replacement event was chosen. This will be most probably done sometimes during the next year but I am not very optimistic concerning the eviction of this unnatural discipline.

But let us go back to the obstacle course: I find the one proposed by the UIPM simply ridiculous. Following the IOC president's recommendations that the new discipline should 

"... demonstrate a significant reduction in cost and complexity and improvements across the areas for safety, accessibility, universality, appeal for youth and general public" 

the obstacle course is a watered-down event, with of roughly 100 m length and 10 obstacles. 

The choice of obstacles is clearly inspired by the ninja warrior tv show, even including the tsunami wall at the end. But with such an easy course one would expect the best athletes to breeze through it with minimal time differences and a small, time-costing, mistake being disproportionally penalising. I am convinced that only a difficult course can offer a fair classification. 

Were I to choose an obstacle course my choice would have been the CISM (Conseil International du Sport Militaire) military one, a 500 m long course with 20 obstacles. This is a course requiring a good combination of strength and speed. A ninja warrior event on the other hand is mainly a strength based event with speed and equilibrium playing a minor role. The UIPM course lies between the two in the sense that it requires both strength and speed but to my eyes it looks like a course for ninja toddlers.

I have already written my ideas on possible really modern pentathlons. But while preparing this article I started pondering the question why the UIPM was so fast-acting in announcing that they would not choose cycling as a replacement of the equestrian event. The conclusion I reached is that they did not wish to look as if they were trying to overshadow the triathlon. (Were they to enter into direct competition with the triathlon, the modern pentathlon would have been expelled then and there from the Games). But let's get back to the quest for an optimal and really modern discipline. First let us forget about fencing. It is quire respectable discipline but it is one where the result depends on the opponents and thus can never be universal. I have mixed feelings about target shooting. It could be preserved in a pentathlon only combined (biathlon-like) with the cross event but I would be equally happy with a well-balanced tetrathlon. So here is what I would like. First a real obstacle course, in the 400-500 m range with 16-20 obstacles, inspired from the military course ones, and why not (for the ninja fans), a warped wall at the end. Then a mountain-bike cross with obstacles. I have zero knowledge when it comes to biking but I am sure that what I propose already exists. An obstacle swimming course of circa 200 m length with 10 or so obstacles (perhaps even swam with fins) could be the third event. And finally a cross, a real one, over a rugged terrain over. The latter could even be disputed as a handicap race, following the Gundersen method. (In an article of mine I called the latter absurd and I keep thinking this as far as the decathlon is concerned. However in a discipline like the one that I am proposing now, and which is essentially locomotion-based, the Gundersen handicap is a possibility).

So, where do we stand with the burdensome legacy of our beloved baron? I am afraid that the IOC warning was just a token one and we'll see the pentathlon being disputed in Los Angeles and being happily celebrated ever after. My only consolation is that the new event may attract the public's interest and obstacle races may become a mainstream discipline. Time will tell. 

WA athletes of the year (another flawless prediction)

OK, I know that I'm bragging. But the fact is that I did correctly predict the winners of this year's awards (and not only in the senior category). 

I was anxious up to the very last moment concerning the selection of S. McLaughlin. (She married recently so she is from now on referred to as McLaughlin-Levrone). Had the title gone to T. Amusan I would have considered this an injustice for McLaughlin but I would have (grudgingly) accepted it. No, my real fear was that the title would to go to a certain sprinter from the Caribbean. Anyhow, all is well that ends well. McLaughlin at just 22 years of age has obtained everything: olympic gold, world champion's title and world records (her most recent one is a fantastic 50.68 s at this year's World's).

She won the U18 400 m hurdles world title in 2015, while not yet 16 years old. And the next year she created the surprise by securing a place in the US olympic team with am impressive 54.15 s at the Trials. 

McLaughlin winning in Cali in 2015

She continued progressing steadily and in 2019, at the World's, she pushed D. Muhammad at a new world record, 52.16 s, McLaughlin becoming herself the second best performer with 52.23 s. And the scenario repeated itself two years later in the Tokyo Olympics where McLaughlin won in a world record 51.46s, Muhammad also dipping under the ancient record in 51.58 s. These two races are certainly the best 400 m hurdles races ever run.

Armand "Mondo" Duplantis is even a few months younger than McLaughlin. And he also has already won everything: olympic gold, world champion's title and world records, the most recent being 6.21 m (which, moreover, was established outdoors something exceptional in the recent history of pole vault). Duplantis has been pole vaulting since he was three years old, and he still holds the records for ages 7 to 12. A World Athletics article is giving his progression from age 6 to today. Really impressive.

He cannot be older than six or seven in the photo

In 2018 he was nominated as rising star of the year both by European and by World Athletics and in 2020 he was voted World Athletics Male Athlete of the Year. So this is his second year's best title. He was, of course, number one in my list but I was not quite confident about his selection by World Athletics given that he had obtained the European Golden Tracks less that two months before. Well, I am reassured now.

The problem is that World Athletics has the tendency to pass over athletes that have been rewarded by European Athletics. The most blatant case of that of V. Alekna (who was my choice for this year's rising star award). He was silver medalist in this year's World's and went on to win the european title. This should have sufficed for him to secure the world rising star nomination. However after he had won the european nomination World Athletics just ignored him: he did not even make the five-person list. 

Moving now to the ones who were chosen I must say that I agree 100 % with the WA choice. A. Vilagos was the one I have selected and E. Knighton was mentioned in my rising stars list. One reason I have not put him forward was that he had won the rising star title already last year and never before have we seen somebody win this twice. Well, Knighton did it, a remarkable first in this domain. (And the funny thing is that Knighton will still be eligible next year).

In the official WA photo Vilagos is looking much older than her real age, so, in order to compensate I am including a photo of her throwing the vortex while very young.

A 12-year old Vilagos throwing the vortex

Vortex is the commercial name of the toy-missile she is holding. She excelled at this and at an age of 13 she graduated to the javelin. As I explained already, while european 2022 champion E. Tzengko (who is just two years older than Vilagos and was nominated European rising star this year) is stronger, Vilagos has a better throwing technique. So, I am keeping an eye on both of them.

The photo of the year winner is here (and, for once, I called it)

World Athletics just published their choice for the Athletics Photograph of the year. As you know I am following the end-of-the-year WA prizes and I am making my own predictions. In the case of the photos they started by giving the three finalists before revealing the shortlisted ones.

Immediately upon seeing the three finalists I chose this one

And (drum roll) today we learned that it's the winner. It's a dramatic moment and in fact one may think that it was game over for Lea Meyer who fell headfirst into the river. Well, she managed to finish her race (although she did not qualify for the final) in a quite respectable 9:30.81 and one month later she won the silver medal in the European Championships with a personal best of 9:15.35.

To tell truth, I was not confident that the photo I chose was the one to win. I was thinking that, while the photo of Meyer's fall had more drama, the photo of the victory of J. Richards at the Commonwealth Games

was more "artistic".

By the way, there is another photo of Meyer's fall among the shortlisted ones, but clearly the one that was selected was the best of the two. 

There are many more nice photos, like the one of S. Miller-Uibo framed by the shadow of the stadium's roof

or the one of D. Kambundji, disconsolate after a fall in hurdles during this winter Indoor World's.

And if you are looking for drama, here is the photo of S. Zhoya hitting hard and breaking a hurdle at this year's European's.

A great collection overall, so, if you are a photo fan, don't hesitate to spend a time perusing the World Athletics page. 

Carles Baronet launches a newsletter

I have written time and again about C. Baronet, the renowned Catalan athletics statistician. For many years he was blogging in his blog Trackinsun. (Curious as it may sound I have never posted an article linking to that blog. It was mentioned in my post on P. Larsson's all-time performances, where I was giving a screen-shot of the Trackinsun banner, but there was never a dedicated article). Unfortunately, Trackinsun disappeared and Baronet decided to publish a weekly newsletter. In spring 2021 he was associated with the excellent site SomosAtletismo, created by J. Estruch. Alas, that site folded after a few months (but all 16 magazines published are still online and I suggest that you go and download them: they are of top quality).

The 2021 newsletter campaign was rather short-lived and a year ago Baronet announced the creation of a new blog. I linked to that, but it turned out that this formula was not satisfactory either and so, in September, Baronet went back to newsletters. As you can imagine I did immediately sign up for them and I have been receiving them in my inbox every week.

The major change is that from 2023 the newsletters will be a subscription-only affair. The price is fixed: 39 euros for the whole year. And in February, May, June and July there are two issues each week. (Those are the months when major championships are held and thus one expects a slew of interesting results). 

Starting from October, the newsletter was revamped: the name Trackinsun is back, and a photo is adorning the cover. The one below is from Esther Guerrero's 1500 m victory in New York, this winter, at the New Balance Indoor Grand Prix.

If you wish to subscribe to Carles Baronet's newsletter (which I urge you to do) you can contact him through email, and he will explain the payment procedure.

The Spartathlon and the Pheidippides run

A few years ago I published an article entitled "On marathons and ultramarathons". I was interested there on how the mean velocity suddenly drops for distances beyond the marathon. A more recent article refined the conclusions of that first article identifying four different regimes in running. Working on these articles got me interested in very long races, the "ultramarathons". My current work in collaboration with G. Purdy on the new scoring tables also pushed me into understanding better the mechanisms involved in ultra-running.

I was discussing these points with my friend, marathon runner extraordinaire, K. Tsagkarakis and I learned from him the existence of a classical race which aims at reproducing a less known (at least to non-greeks) Pheidippides feat. I had already heard about the Spartathlon but during my discussion with my friend Kostas I learned about the Pheidippides run.  

When the Persians attacked Greece the citizens of Athens sent Pheidippides to Sparta to ask for military help. According to Herodotus, Pheidippides arrived to Sparta the very next day. As history has it, the Spartans could not leave before the moon were full and thus would not arrive on time for the battle. So, Pheidippides ran back to Athens bringing the not so encouraging news. The Athenians decided to confront the Persians at Marathon and we all know how that ended. As for Pheidippides, he expired just after bringing the good news of the victory in Marathon to the magistrates of Athens. (But there is no mention of this in Herodotus, the first account appearing five centuries later in Plutarch, who, moreover, is mentioning a different runner. Most probably the whole expiring marathon runner story is a romantic invention).  

Pheidippides journey to Sparta kindled the interest of long-distance runners and in 1982 four british officers tried to cover the distance from Athens to Sparta (roughly 250 km) in less than 36 hours. One of them succeeded and two more covered the distance but taking more than 36 hours. That was the birth of the Spartathlon. It attracted immediately the interest of runners and since 1982, the Spartathlon is held annually. The route has been normalised to 245 km and the runners must cover it in under 36 hours. It starts at the foot of the Acropolis and, in Sparta, the finish line is at the statue of king Leonidas. There exist check points along the route where the runners may be taken off the race if they fail to meet the time cut-off. And not everybody may enter the race, the selection criteria are quite tough and the total number is limited to 400. In fact due to the popularity of the race a ballot system has been introduced for all but the elite athletes who exceed the criteria by a large margin.

The recordman of the course is none other than Y. Kouros, the famous greek ultra-marathoner,  with 20:25:00 dating back to 1984. In 40 years of history there have been only 8 greek victories, the most recent one being this year's victory of F. Zisimopoulos in 21:00:48. Kouros and Zisimopoulos hold the 6 best performances. The women's record is held by P. Bereznowska in 24:48:18, from 2017. She is in fact 50th overall when men's and women's performances are pooled together.

But what Pheidippides did was not simply going to Sparta. He came back to Athens the next day. So, long-distance runners, finding that the Spartathlon is too easy, decided to reproduce Pheidippides feat and the Φειδιππίδειος δρόμος was born. 

Y. Kouros is probably the first who ran the 490 km from Athens to Sparta and back. His performance from 2005 is 63 hours. Last year's winner covered the distance in 65:51 (which is the official record) while the first woman finished third overall in 67:54 hours. The first official competition was held in 2015 (the one in 2014 was "just" a Spartathlon) but due to the epidemic it was not held in 2020. The 7th Pheidippides run is scheduled for later this month (Nov. 24-28): 45 runners will take the start, with four women among them. I will follow the race over the internet and report in case of a new record.

PS Last year's winner and official record holder, L. Sagan, won again this year and improved the record to 65:22.

The World Athletics choice of the year's best

World Athletics published their list of the best athletes of the year and while there is some overlap with mine there are also points of divergence. This is normal, my year's best list is established according to my own interpretation of the year's results and it is 100 % subjective. (One could point out that WA's choice, in particular when it comes to the nomination of the athlete of the year, is not totally objective either).

So, let us start with the women's list (given in alphabetical order)

Tobi Amusan *
Chase Ealey
Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce *
Kimberly Garcia *
Shericka Jackson
Faith Kipyegon
Yaroslava Mahuchikh
Sydney McLaughlin *
Shaunae Miller-Uibo 
Yulimar Rojas *

Just six of the athletes in the WA list figure also in mine. I did not mention at all C. Ealey. I did mention S. Fraser-Price just to say that I am not going to include her in my list (somehow I do not manage to appreciate her). K. Garcia was mentioned and I would have included her to my list (despite the fact that race-walking is a no-no for me) but for pure nationalistic reasons I chose A. Drisbioti. I did mention S. Miller-Uibo although I did not include her in the top ten. 

I have also the impression that World athletics are coordinating their choice with that of European Athletics. There is no other way to understand the fact that F. Bol was absent from the top-ten list (and Thiam as well). Bol was the winner of the Golden Tracks trophy (for the second year in a row) which crowns the European athlete of the year. So, perhaps (but I am aware that this may sound as a conspiracy theory) the choices of the European federation may well influence those of World Athletics.

Let's move now to the men's list

Kristjan Ceh
Alison dos Santos
Mondo Duplantis *
Soufiane El Bakkali *
Grant Holloway
Jakob Ingebrigtsen *
Eliud Kipchoge *
Noah Lyles *
Anderson Peters
Pedro Pichardo

My list and that of WA have a 70 % overlap. The ones not figuring in my list are El Bakkali, Holloway and Pichardo. I think that El Bakkali cannot be compared to the best kenyan steeplechasers like Cherono, Kemboi or Kipruto. I may change opinion if he breaks the world record. Since the duel of G. Holloway with D. Allen never took place (for reasons I'll explain in a future post of mine) I decided to simply forget the 110 m hurdles. Finally Pichardo is a great triple jumper but I would have fully appreciated his world title had the two ex-cuban Diaz taken part in the championship. 

A. Duplantis is at the top of my list, but he just obtained the european Golden Tracks trophy (shared with J. Ingebrigtsen). I wonder whether I should start worrying about his chances to be nominated athlete of the year. The european choice for male rising star went obviously to V. Alekna. And there was a nice surprise in the female category with E. Tzengko. I have mentioned her in my list of rising stars but finally my choice went to A. Vilagos whom I find better technically. However, Tzengko is stronger so no-one knows how their rivalry will evolve over the years.

The WA rising star list was published with a substantial delay with respect to the initial schedule (and thus I had to wait before publishing this article). Here is the women's list

Jackline Chepkoech
Faith Cherotich
Mine De Klerk
Kerrica Hill
Adriana Vilagos

In my post on the year's rising stars I presented only a list of three but only A. Vilagos (who is my choice for this year's rising star) does appear in the WA list. I just have a minor objection concerning the choice of F. Cherotich, since she is in the same specialty as J. Chepkoech and I chose Clayton over Hill but all in all WA's choice is OK. (And, just to risk a prediction, J. Chepkoech looks like the favourite for this year's trophy). 

The men's rising star list is really bizarre.

Anthony Amirati
Jaydon Hibbert
Erriyon Knighton
Letsile Tebogo
Emmanuel Wanyonyi

Tebogo appears in my list and Knighton is also mentioned. But I find it preposterous that Alekna does not get even a simple mention. Does this mean that when somebody gets the european trophy he is de facto excluded from the world list? Anyhow, given the huge difference between Knighton and the others, he is, to my eyes, the favourite for this year's nomination. Unless the fact that he was chosen last year makes him ineligible. The procedures of World Athletics are becoming of byzantine complexity. 

PS World Athletics has just published their list of five finalists. Instead of publishing a special post I have added an asterisk at the end of the names of the finalists. I am really worried seeing S-A Fraser-Pryce among the five. Would WA dare ignore S. McLaughlin for the second year in a row? Everything is possible. (There is of course the outsider, T. Amusan, but if it comes to choosing between the two hurdlers I think that McLaughlin would prevail). I cannot understand why Dos Santos did not make the finalist list. Here the situation is far from clear. Duplanits and Kipchoge have already been nominated athlete of the year title. Duplantis and Ingebrigtsen obtained the european Golden Tracks. Could Lyles obtain the title this year? Had he beaten Bolt's world record we would have been the obvious choice. But as the things stand I cannot make any predictions.

A brief history of the IAAF/WA scoring tables: The 1985 tables

The Ulbrich/Jörbeck tables managed to survive for more than 20 years. This is another proof (if there were ever a need for that) of the extreme conservatism of the IAAF/WA. They had a set of tables which were manifestly unfair and, moreover, they have been offered a possibility to remedy that, through the work of G. Purdy. And, still, they clung to their tables despite the fact that they were counterproductive for the combined events. Finally they saw the light. Or perhaps Jörbeck had at that time retired (he passed away in 1989) and the technical committee could, at last, move forwards. Be that as it may, in 1982 the IAAF appointed a working group, under the direction of V. Trkal, tasked to prepare new scoring tables.

J. Trkal, the mastermind behind the 1985 tables

It is funny to point out here that Purdy's was not the only proposal for new scoring tables. Bob Sparks, a renowned athletics statistician, proposed in 1981 a new set of tables which were in fact accepted by the 1981 IAAF Congress. However, just like Purdy's, these  tables were highly progressive and this led to strongly voiced protests from coaches and athletes. So the IAAF backpedaled and asked the Technical Committee to prepare a new proposal. 

The important thing is that Trkal understood the physical/physiological basis of scoring. In his own words:

"My starting point was the idea that athletic performance is physical work. This is represented primarily by kinetic energy of the given system, irrespective of whether a run, jump, or throw is involved. Speed v is to the second power in all cases, and this indirectly implies a progressive form for the necessary curve. The American J. Gerry Purdy, PhD., has published two articles on the evaluation of performances in athletics, and I studied these".

Under his guidance the working group organised their quest for the new scoring tables along a set of nine principles:

1. The tables should only be used for combined events.

2. The results in different disciplines that are evaluated with approximately the same point value should be comparable as far as the quality and difficulty of achieving these results are concerned.

3. The tables in all disciplines should be:

a. a modification of current tables,

b. linear in all disciplines,

c. very slightly progressive in all disciplines (it was proposal 3c that was favoured by Trkal and that was finally adopted).

4. The tables must be usable with combined events for beginners and juniors as well as top-class athletes.

5. There will be separate tables for men and women.

6. The tables must be based on decathlon statistics, taking into account the statistics of specialist athletes in the individual disciplines.

7. The tables should be usable now and in the future.

8. The sum of points scored by world-class athletes should remain approximately the same.

9. As far as possible, the tables should eliminate the possibility that an athlete specialising in one discipline is able to acquire sufficient points in that discipline to overcome low scores in weaker disciplines and beat more versatile, all-round athletes.

The new tables were adopted in 1984 and were used in combined event competitions from 1985 onwards. They are valid today with just a few modifications in order to account for the changes in the javelin implement and the introduction of the women's decathlon. 

Zarnowski in his history of scoring tables is particularly unfair towards the new tables. He says that the IAAF has issued neither a mathematical nor a statistical explanation of the tables. And concludes that "on the whole [they] prove to be less reliable than their 1962 counterpart".

The mathematical expression of the new scoring tables is particularly simple where x is the performance for field events.

When it comes to track events, though, instead of using a velocity-based scoring

the authors of the tables opted for the use of time

which, transcribed in terms of velocity, would read as

A scoring based on such an expression would be, in principle, regressive. Fortunately, in practice, the domain of variation of velocity is rather small (there is just a factor of 2 between the null-score and the max-score velocities) and in this domain the relation of points to velocity is practically linear.

In a future publication I will explain how the scoring formula of the WA tables is related to the Weibull probability distribution which has been proposed as an adequate descriptor of the human performance. (But the mathematically oriented readers can find all the details in "Distribution of performances and scoring in athletics", by J. Meloun, J.G. Purdy and myself which appeared in Math. and Sports 3 (2022) 1). 

With this post the second season of scoring theories is complete. But just as in the case of the "Long and arduous road of women to the Olympics", there will be bonus tracks, like the one where I told the story of the travel of G. Purdy to Copenhagen and his meeting with the IAAF technical committee.

The rising stars of 2022

The choice for the men's rising star is a no-brainer. V. Alekna won the silver medal in the World Championships and went on to win the European title. With a personal best just shy of 70 m it is clear that he is somebody we are going to see in the men's list in the years to come. 

S. Skotheim is a a 8300 points decathlete who finished 7th in the european championships. He is just one among a whole generation of young decathletes and while he excels in the long jump and high jump he has a well-balanced profile. So, I am betting that we are going to see more of him in the future. 

L. Tebogo is the World U20 2022 champion in the 100 m (having lost the 200 m in a memorable race) and already African champion in the longer distance. His personal bests of 9.91 and 19.96 s mean that we have to keep an eye open for him in the years to come. 

And let us not forget that last year's rising star E. Knighton is just 18 years old and pursues his progress: his personal best in the 200 m is now 19.49 s (5th fastest of all times). He finished third in the 2022 World Championships obtaining his first "major" medal.

A. Vilagos is my choice for the female rising star of the year. Having seen her throw in the European championships convinced me of her enormous potential. And the fact that her direct rival E. Tzengko is just 20 (Vilagos is 18) will, hopefully, bring about a revival of women's javelin throw, a discipline that has been stagnating this past decade.

The second choice for the rising star will again go to a serbian athlete: A. Topic. Following in the steps of her father, Topic won her first European medal, a bronze, at just 17 years of age. 

T. Clayton is my third choice for a rising star. She won the World U20 title over 100 m two years in a row with 11.09 in 2021 and a world record 10.95 s in 2022. I bet that it will not be long before she joins the senior jamaican relay team.

Here again we cannot forget last year's rising star A. Mu and her "shadow" K. Hodgkinson. They are just 20 years old and won the world and european titles respectively this year. 

My choice of the year's best athletes

For the second year in a row S. McLaughlin occupies the top position in my classification. Last year, in a decision I had trouble understanding, World Athletics passed her over for the year's best title preferring E. Thompson. Let us hope that this year they will not find any excuses (my greatest fear being that they nominate Fraser-Price, who as you'll see is not among my ten best). What McLaughlin did in Eugene was unique, besting even Warholm's feat at the Olympics. Seeing the ease with which she obtained that record, one can start dreaming about a sub-50 time (and, why not, a sub-48 in the 400 m flat).

The second place is occupied by T. Amusan. Breaking a world record twice was really extraordinary, even if her 12.06 s cannot be homologated due to the wind speed (but I am not sure that a strong wind is really favourable in the case of hurdles).

The third place goes to S. Jackson. Her 21.45 s is second only to Flo-Jo's 200 m world record (and she backed it up with a 10.71 s in the 100 m). Given her amazing speed and the fact that she is initially a 400 m specialist (with  49.74 s personal best) she is (just as McLaughlin) a candidate for a sub-48 time, if she decides to move back to the longer distance.

Y. Rojas would have joined the top three, had she managed to break the more than 25 years old championships record of Kravets. Still, her 15.47 m in Eugene is the fifth best performance of all times.

F. Kipyegon has by now established herself as the world's best female miler. Two times olympic and world champion and three times Diamond League final winner, the only thing that is missing in her list is the world record. I am convinced that she can be the first woman to break the 3:50 barrier.

After having won the indoor world title with 7.06 m I. Vuleta (Spanovic) went on to win the Europeans with the very same performance. And despite the fact that her performance at the World's was really below-par, the fact that she could keep at bay the world champion, M. Mihambo, during the Europeans does suffice for me in order to include her in my top list.

N. Thiam won both the World's and the Europeans. And it has not been easy. She had to show all her talent, digging deep in her reserves improving even her 800 m personal best in the World's in order to obtain gold. I have been following her since her beginnings and I am convinced that if one day she decides to complete a decathlon the world record will not resist.

A. Drisbioti occupies a well-merited place in the year's best list after her brilliant double win in race-walking at the Europeans. (To be fair K. Garcia-León did exactly the same thing in the World's, winning both the 20 and 35 km and should, in principle, appear also in the top list. But, as you know, I don't care about race-walking and I never comment on this discipline. Drisbioti's presence is an exception, obviously a question of national pride).

F. Bol was second in the 400 m hurdles in Eugene and went on to win both 400 m in the European championships, succeeding where Warholm failed four years ago. To my memory nobody has obtained this double victory in a major championship.

For the last, tenth place, I hesitated a lot between the triplet of 800 m runners Mu-Hodgkinson-Moraa (the first two are mentioned in the rising star section), the doublet Miller-Paulino, the two 400 m stars, and N. Jeruto, who is the new 3000 m steeplechase star (although I cherish the hope that B. Chepkoech will be able to come back to top shape next year). 

In the end I opted for Y. Mahuchikh. (Believe me, this has nothing to do with the fact that she is ukrainian. I strongly oppose the mixing of politics with sport and I will never consider a different treatment of ukrainian athletes under the influence of the current political situation). My choice is simply based on the fact that, in the absence of M. Lasitskene, Mahuchikh is simply the best high jumper today. She proved this by going for the world record after having jumped 2.05 m in September.

For the men's lit the choice for the top position was a simple one. A. Duplantis is the best pole vaulter ever. He broke the world record twice this year, and both times during a world championship. He even managed, what is considered as exceptional, to have an outdoors record better than the indoors one. He was already number one in my 2020 list.

The second place was also a no-brainer. E. Kipchoge is the best Marathon runner ever (having eclipsed even the mythical Abebe Bikila). His recent world record of 2:01:09 took 30 s off the previous one. He was number one in my top list of 2018 and 2019. Curiously he has never won the world title in the Marathon (but he did win the 5000 m in 2003). By 2024 Kipchoge will be 40 years old and the Paris Marathon route is a particularly taxing one with a 438 m elevation (even worse than that of the classical Athens Marathon). Will Kipchoge go for a third olympic victory? If he does and wins that will be the occasion to remember the famous phrase pronounced for Diagoras: «Κάτθανε, Διαγόρα, οὐ καὶ ἐς Ὄλυμπον ἀναβήσῃ».

For the third place N. Lyles is the hands-down winner. With 19.31 s over 200 m he is the third performer of all times and he managed to push M. Johnson out of the US record list. He has four of the best five performances of the year (E. Knighton being having the third best). Even Bolt's world record of 19.19 s looks now within Lyles' reach.

A. DosSantos would have made the top three hadn't he be pushed down by Kipchoge's fabulous world record. Speaking of world records it is not impossible that, given his progression, Dos Santos grabs Warholm's record next year.

M. Tentoglou was the best long jumper of the year, losing the world title on a lucky jump by the chinese athlete. He won the world indoors, the Europeans and the Diamond League final. He has a huge talent and I hope that he will materialise it going beyond his 8.60 m personal best. First objective the 8.66 m greek national record.

K. Ceh dominated the discus throw and while he lost the Europeans he was the most consistent thrower of the year with 5 wins over 70 m and a 71.27 m (but curiously he does not have the longest throw of the year, Stahl, who had a below-par year, having thrown 71.47 in June).

A. Peters had four javelin competitions won with over 90 m throws, with a best of 93.07 m and did conserve his 2019 world title winning in Eugene with 90.54 m. (Curiously he managed to los the Commonwealth title to A. Nadeem, but the latter's victory was a well-merited one with a 90+ throw).

E. Korir added the world 800 m title to his olympic one from last year. And he went on to win the Diamond League final. That's more than enough for him to deserve a place in the year's top list. 

From here onwards the choice for the top ten list becomes somewhat complicated. M. Barshim won his third consecutive world title in high jump but then his performance in the Diamond League final was more than mediocre. G. Tamberi won the Europeans and the Diamond League final but he did not shine in the World's where he finished out side the medals. P. Fajdek won his fifth consecutive world title in hammer throw but he managed to lose the european title to W. Nowicki. R. Crouser won (finally) a world title in shot put but his end of the season was so-so, and J. Kovacs profited in order to nick the diamond in the Diamond League final and become, with 23.23 m the second performer of all times. J. Cheptegei added a second world title over 10000 m but his performance in the 5000 m, where he is the reigning olympic champion, was somewhat disappointing. So, while all the athletes just mentioned are, in principle worth including in the top list I will make a different choice.

J. Ingebrigtsen lost the world title over 1500 m on what I consider a tactical error (and a fast finisher). But he went on to win the 5000 m and he obtained gold over both distances in the Europeans. Adding to this his victory in the Diamond League final and to my eyes he amply deserves his place among the top ten.

I may surprise my readers with my last choice: K. Mayer. He won his second world title showing, what should be obvious, that the decathlon is won only at the end of the second day. Admittedly Mayer profited from the withdrawal of Warner due to injury but his victory in a decathlon where he was 6th at the end of the first day is a proof of his immense talent. (Interestingly enough, while Mayer took the lead after the 9th the event, N. Kaul won the Europeans, after Mayer's withdrawal, entering the 10th event 178 points behind the leader).

I cannot close my year's best list without mentioning K. James. For more than 10 years he has been a protagonist in the 400 m. He has a medal of each colour in both the Olympics and the World's. This year he won (for the second time after 2011) the Diamond League final. He has never had the world record but for me he is the best 400 m runner.

Kirani James in the Tokyo 2020 Olympics where he won the bronze medal

This year World Athletics decide to separate the nomination of the rising stars from that of the senior athletes. As a consequence, I will delay the publication of my own list (which, by the way, is ready) by a few days, so as not to be completely out of phase with the WA announcements.

The blog is nine years old

The situation did improve in 2022. As the epidemic abated, the sports activities went back to an almost normal schedule. In fact, due to the postponements of competitions, 2022 was really exceptional with a World Championship and a European one held within the same season with just one months separating them. With the Commonwealth Games sandwiched between the two, this called for some hard choices for the athletes. 

The Diamond League competitions were held as planned (except for the ones programmed for China) and the athletes participation was massive. Moreover the Continental Tour meetings were efficiently promoted by World Athletics and they are now, if not quite on par with the Diamond League, at least an important rendez-vous for the world elite. Unfortunately World Athletics has extended the monetisation of the Diamond League to the Continental Tour meetings which means that you can watch the event only through the provider who has obtained the rights in your country. Quite often this means a paying subscription, something that I reject as a principle. If there is no official provider in the country then it is possible to follow the competitions on the World Athletics youtube channel. (And the existence of the latter offers the possibility to bypass the official provider through the use of a vpn, but one has to be knowledgeable about these things). 

The traffic of the blog was constantly over 1000 visits per month but my feeling is that there is an overall drop in the views. Could that be attributed to the fact that during the epidemic years people were spending more time on the internet? I don't know. In any case, contrary to last year's visit boost due to the Olympics, this year's championships did not have any sizeable effect. 

The series on Women and the Olympics, launched last year, was completed in March with an article on the great champion Kinue Hitomi. Following this I launched the second season on theories of scoring, and as was appropriate the first article was an interview of the great scoring specialist G. Purdy (who has since become a collaborator of mine). I expect (this season of) the series to be completed before the end of the year. And, in case you were wondering, I intend to pursue writing for the blog, hoping that at the same time next year we will be able to celebrate its tenth year of existence. I must confess that when I started the blog I did not plan for such a longevity of this enterprise of mine.

Purdy in Copenhagen (bonus track of "Theories of Scoring")

I could not resist making a nod, through the title of this article, to the great opera of John Adams "Nixon in China" on an idea of Peter Sellars (I am an unconditional fan of Sellars' work). What did spur this choice of mine was the fact that Gerry visited Copenhagen at around the same time when Nixon visited China (February 1972). Nixon's visit is considered by historians as a significant one, pushing the Soviet Union to enter an era of détente with the US. 

Purdy's visit, although it did not lead to his scoring tables be officially adopted by the IAAF, had managed to convince the members of the IAAF Technical Committee that the existing scoring tables were unfair and had to be replaced. It took them more than 10 years to do this. Had they accepted to work with Purdy, combined events would have been spared a frustrating decade. The story of Purdy's visit to Copenhagen is told below in his own words without one iota of editing. 

My Visit with the IAAF Technical Committee, Winter 1972

(Or From Russia without Much Love)

Copenhagen, Denmark

J. Gerry Purdy, Ph.D.

Recall April 8, 2022

Boca Raton, Florida

Edited by Jalane Meloun, Ph.D. and Basil Grammaticos, Ph.D. 

Background

In 1966-68, I was training and running various road races in Southern California while working at TRW Aerospace (now Northrup Grumman) and finishing my M.S. degree in Computer Science at UCLA. 

My running partner and friend was James B. “Jim” Gardner. Being engineers, we began to study running training as a science. We realized that while there were lots of coaching books to help runners train, there wasn’t any way to scientifically adapt them to each runner’s specific level of ability and situation.

Jim and I developed some models of performance, and I then developed some software from ’69-’70 that calculated the runner’s level of ability (point score) and from the level of ability generated tables for both interval training on the track and for road running training. 

Jim and I put together the tables and explanation in a book called Computerized Running Training Programs [1]. 

It was published by Track and Field News in 1970. 

During that process, we noticed that the IAAF Decathlon Scoring Tables [2] used to score the 10 different Decathlon events didn’t make any sense. The Tables were progressive for the running events, i.e. that they properly designated more points per unit change in performance as you went up the performance scale. But we found that the tables for the field events were regressive – namely that you got less points for the same unit change in performance as you went up the scale. That didn’t model physiology. Something was basically wrong. 

At this time, Jim shared with me that he had developed cancer and didn’t have long to live. I was living in the San Franciso Bay Area at the time attending Stanford, so I flew to LA to visit with him back just before he passed away. It was terrible to lose such a close friend so suddenly. I told him I’d continue our work. 

With the information about the problem with the IAAF Decathlon Scoring Tables, I figured I’d call the IAAF in London and let them know about the problem so that they could then fix it. I didn’t know how they were constructed. I knew a good bit about running training but not anything about the way the Olympics were managed or how the multi-event tables were created. 

I found out that John Holt was Executive Director of the IAAF Technical Committee. His contact information was listed in the back of the booklet for the IAAF Scoring tables along with the IAAF phone number in London. I never have a problem taking the initiative, so I gave him a call. I can distinctly remember hearing that double tone when the phone rings in Europe vs a single tone in the U.S. After a few rings, a distinguished sounding gentleman answered. I asked if I could speak with Mr. John Holt. I identified who I was calling from Stanford University in California. He said he was John Holt and to call him John. 

John Holt (Number 1 in the photo) in his runner's days

We hit it off right away. I explained why I was calling – that I had found an error in the Decathlon Scoring Tables. He said (in his lovely English accent), “Oh really?” I then explained that all the field events were regressive instead of progressive and that regressive didn’t model physiologic effort. He gave me a small laugh and said he didn’t understand what I was talking about. I tried again more slowly and explained why the table needed to be progressive. He sounded more affirmative. I thought, “By George, I think he’s got it” (adapted from My Fair Lady when Professor Higgens tells Eliza Doolittle the same thing). 

At this point, I recall that John responded with something that was the very opposite from what I expected him to say. I thought he’d say something like, “Well, jolly good, we’ll take it under advisement and get back to you.”

Instead, he said, “Well, why don’t you fix it?” I thought, “Huh, I don’t even know how those tables were created let alone to fix them!” I told him I’d look into it. 

I was able to find out from John that the 1962 Decathlon Scoring Tables [3] were developed by Dr. Karl Ulbrich in Austria. I got his address and had a friend at Stanford who knew German translate my letter to him asking him about how he created the tables. 

Surprisingly about 2-3 weeks later (think of that compared to email today), I received a nice response in German that my friend translated into English. There is plenty of reference materials including these letters available in the Stanford Computer Science Department Library. 

Ulbrich explained how he developed his tables: he simply used velocity for the running events and the square root of distance and height as the metric to be equivalent to velocity for the field events [4]. While elegant mathematically, using the square root of the distance/height for the field events resulted in generating a model that was regressive instead of progressive. His table was adopted in 1962 by the IAAF (now World Athletics). 

Through this historical research, I realized that I had the opportunity to do my Ph.D. thesis on finding a better way to generate the scoring table for the Decathlon in the Olympics. Quite a challenge to say the least. I wrote a dissertation proposal and got it approved.  Then, I had to figure out how to develop a progressive formula from which I could develop a computer program (in FORTRAN) and create something to show to John Holt and the IAAF Technical Committee. 

A professor in the Operations Research Department was interested in my work and agreed to help me. At first, I thought some kind of exponential term would do it, but I found when running the calculations that a single exponential formula would either work well at the high end of the scale but not at the low end or the opposite: that it would work well at the lower end but not the higher end. 

The professor suggested we use a linear term for the low end and an exponential term for the high end which gave now my ‘famous’ formula that is the basis for what we are using in our new much improved approach now:  

Where -

p is the point score or level of ability which we now call the TraxScore

x is the performance mark (velocity for running and height or distance for field events)

a,b,c are constants

z is the zero offset or the value below which is deemed to not be a performance. 

I did some fiddling and determined that the zero offset should be around 2 m/sec for running and a set of arbitrary but rational values for the field events.  

Next, I then had to define three points along the curve to solve the equation for three constants. I talked to Bert Nelson (then Publisher at Track and Field News) who provided me with access to statistics from their publications. In the end, I had about 100+ performances that were defined a priori as:

• High (1400 points) – The world records at the time with some hand adjustments.  

• Middle (1100 points) – The average of the 50 top performances in the world. 

• Low (500 points) – The average of the 50 top master’s performances in the 50-60 ages. 

The values for the 500, 1100 and 1400 point levels are included in both [3] and [6].

In retrospect, it’s better to have this rough estimate of what a good model should present than not to have anything. Better (as we are now doing) to have large datasets that allow the scoring function to best model the behavior of the entire population for all the major events. Then, the calculation of the TraxScore for odd distances will follow along the path of the known population from low to high performances. 

I then used the least squares subroutine available from the computer center and ran the solution over and over until the difference between the constants calculated for each event was miniscule. Voilà! I had a solution that worked for all 10 of the Decathlon events plus a number of additional road running events such as the 5K, 10K, Half Marathon and Full Marathon. 

My program kept growing and growing as I had to program printouts that were attractive that was very difficult to do in FORTRAN! My program grew to over 10,000 lines of code. It was all originally prepared on punched cards and took up boxes to get stored on the IBM 2311 disc packs. I vowed I would never write another computer program again!

One humorous vignette: I was called in to talk with the director of the Stanford computer center. He told me I exceeded the total storage that was allowed for graduate students: 5MB ... not GB but MB! I explained what I was doing, and he was nice and said he’d approve my having allotment of 10MB but to get it done by June and take it down when I was finished. I did. 

I was giving John Holt updates via letters and occasional phone calls. He was delighted that I had made so much progress. He then invited me to present my new tables to the IAAF Technical Committee that was meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark in February 1972 before the Olympic Games that summer in Munich, Germany.

Well, I was graduating in May 1972, so I put together my tables into a concise write up (that later was published in Medicine & Science in Sports [4-6]) and sent the writeup to John who then made copies for all the Technical Committee members to read before I showed up. Other relevant articles include [7-9].

The IAAF Technical Committee Meeting in Copenhagen

I can’t remember the name of the hotel where the meeting was held, but it was fairly close to Tivoli Gardens which I went by to see where it was located while there even though it was closed for the winter. 

John hosted a welcome reception for everyone who flew in from all over the world. I had a chance to talk to a number of the IAAF Technical Committee members and tell them why I was there. 

The meeting the next day was rather uneventful. I waited outside the room as they didn’t want me to hear some of the things they were discussing. I was brought in during a break and presented to them using overhead foils (remember them?). My research and development were received quite well, and the questions they asked were all reasonable. They appreciated my work to correct the definite problem with then approved scoring tables. The meeting lasted around an hour. 

At the break, I was gathering my things when a rather stout lady in a printed dress approached me with a badge indicating she was from the USSR. She said – with a strong Russian accent – something along the lines of, “Dr. Purdy, the leader of our delegation would like to meet you in the hotel lobby for coffee at 4 pm before our dinner this evening.” I told her that would be delighted to meet with him. Then, she said something that surprised me, “If you don’t mind, could you bring me a book in English of a popular novel in America?” I sort of pulled back a bit mentally and she continued, “I want to improve my English as a translator.” 

I told her I would try to satisfy her request. It was clear she didn’t have easy access to English books even though she could likely find one locally in a nearby bookstore. (I remember thinking at the time that while she could go buy a book in English, she wanted me to select something that was popular in order to better understand American culture.)

I spent the day looking around trying to find a US novel in English (vs. a translation into Danish). The first one I found was The Carpetbaggers by Hold Robbins. I felt this just wasn’t the right story to give her. I also thought of giving her Margaret Mitchell’s Gone with the Wind but also felt it wouldn’t be appropriate glorifying the Civil War and segregation in the south. I think I settled on Love Story by Erich Segal and found it in a nearby bookstore. 

Around 4 pm that afternoon, I went to the lobby to meet the head of the delegation from the USSR along with his translator. He was a bit stoic – formal and let his translator do the introductions. Somehow it came over me that this woman was more than a translator for this distinguished emissary. Just a gut feeling. He wore a suit and tie. I was just a Ph.D. student from Stanford, but out of respect I did wear a suit and tie. 

So, we finally got down to talking about the research papers I had written about my new model of human performance and generation of scoring tables. He would talk in a sentence or two in Russian, and she would then translate that into English. It was rather slow going as she talked much slower than him thus extending the time of the dialog.

He thanked me for my sending the research papers to him. Without missing a beat, she interpreted and said, “Your scoring method is really quite good. But we have our own scoring system that we are submitting for review and consideration.” I thought, “Well, this is interesting. Maybe I can learn something about how others approach solving the scoring table problem.” 

I then asked him, “Why that’s very exciting. How is your system determined? May I see of your research papers?” Off to the translator. He nodded as in taking in what I had asked. He then responded with a bit of high brow authoritarian emphasis. He responded slowly directly to me in broken English, “Our system very similar to yours. We changed few things. We not give you any information about our system. We submit directly to the IAAF with our name on it.”

I clearly remember being dumfounded. Here I was a very innocent young American talking to someone of high position in Athletics from the USSR. I then thought, “Holy shit, he’s taking my system and putting his name on it!” I sat there not sure what to say next. I felt like having been run over by a steamroller. 

There wasn’t the miniscule of a smile on his face to indicate that he was just joking like you might think would happen in the U.S. You know, like suddenly smiling and saying, “Just kidding.” Nope, he was dead serious. 

I wondered if there was anything else to discuss. I also wondered why he just told me that. If he was really just going to put his name on my work, why in the world did he mention that? It just didn’t make any sense. But that stern expression when he told me was one of superiority and not caring what he was doing. [Seems very similar to the way Putin's Russia decided to invade Ukraine with impunity. Culture lesson.]

I may have said something innocuous but likely simply thanked him for his time. I then handed my book gift wrapped in a bag to the translator, “Here’s a small gift for setting up this meeting.” 

But wait, there’s more!

I found John Holt just before dinner and related to him what had happened. As I told him the story, a smile developed on his face as he was dying to tell me something funny. Once I finished, he responded with a smile still on his face, “Gerry, we’ve known that fellow for many years. He always acts that way, and we just don’t pay any attention to him. Don’t worry, he’s not going to put his name on your work and get away with it.” Phew!

John hosted a magnificent closing dinner for the IAAF members. They were very kind to include me. As a young Ph.D. student and soon-to-be graduate, I was almost awestruck by it: the menu was printed on silk fabric with the Olympic name and logo at the top. The dinner was served all at once with metal warming covers and then removed concurrently, and – best of all – dessert was baked Alaska with sparklers on top and served to us with the lights dimmed in the room. What a great experience!

Great ending to a fascinating story. 

P.S. John later told me that everyone agreed with my principles for generating future scoring tables. They set up a committee to figure out how to generate the next official table based on my work. It took them 12 years as the next version was adopted in 1984. 

References

1. Purdy, J. Gerry, Computerized Running Training Programs, Track and Field Press, Palo Alto, CA 1970. 

2. IAAF, Scoring table for the men’s track and field events, IAAF, London, England 1962. (Note: IAAF is now renamed World Athletics).

3. Purdy, J. Gerry, “The Application of Computers to Model Physiologic Performance in Track and Field,” Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, June 1972. 

4. Purdy, J. Gerry, “Computer Generated Track and Field Scoring Tables: I. Historical Development,” Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 287-294, 1974. 

5. Purdy, J. Gerry, “Computer Generated Track and Field Scoring Tables: II. Theoretical Foundation & Development of a Model,” Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. 7, No. 2, pp. 111-115, 1975. 

6. Purdy, J. Gerry, “Computer Generated Track and Field Scoring Tables: III. Model Evaluation & Analysis, “Medicine & Science in Sports, Vol. 9, No. 4, pp. 1212-218, 1977. 

7. Grammaticos, Basil and Purdy, J. Gerry, Meloun, Jalane, “Distribution of performances and scoring in athletics,” Math. and Sports 3 (2022) 1.

8. Grammaticos, Basil, “The physical basis of scoring the athletic performance,” New Study. Athl. 22:3 (2007) 47.

9. Grammaticos, Basil, Purdy, J. Gerry and Meloun, Jalane, “Scoring running performances,” draft, March 2022.